wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com writes >> This is a wonderful idea! It could even make sense to have Metapedia >> as a Wikimedia project...an explicitly curatorial project that >> attempts to sort different kinds of content and evaluate strengths and >> weaknesses.
Having this hosted by Wikimedia would be a great opportunity to reinvent past mistakes. >> It could also serve as a place to have general >> discussions about certain topics, without the necessity (as on >> Wikipedia talk pages, nominally) of focusing on content improvement; >> that's something that there's a need for, and something that causes >> specific projects to suffer because of the tendency of readers to try >> to start general discussions.>> >> I've noticed the appalling trend to apply restrictions to content improvement on talk pages. Wide ranging discussions on talk pages are important to the better understanding of many articles. > I've noticed a number of news outlets allowing posts at the bottom of > articles. You can't actually change the article itself yet, but why the heck > not? They could easily set-up moderated changes. Better than some reporter > slogging through 500 posts to find the one that complains about a spelling > error. Moderated changes need to be accompanied by article histories to prevent truth as flavor of the day. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l